Bos av_phile1:
First of all, Philippine law is different from U.S. law. An answer for the U.S. setting can sometimes be very different from an answer in the Philippine setting. For this post, I'll just make some reasonable assumptions concerning the jurisdiction you're referring to.
=======================================================
When someone broadcasts to the world the security lock combination of your safe, can you have a case to sue that person and expect to win? Because I think this is analogous to what happened at Digg.
Yes, if your safe's combination is broadcast to the world, that is definitely a tortious act, an actionable wrong for which the perpetrator can be held liable for damages.
It might seem analogous, but strictly speaking, there's actually a big difference. The Digg incident is covered by pertinent copyright laws under mercantile law; the safe's combination is covered by "intentional tort" jurisprudence.
I suspect that the DMCA is another toothless law arising from the huge lobby money from studios. Someone should really question and revoke this law.
Yes, it's very likely that the DMCA resulted from movie studio lobbying. But it's definitely not toothless. In fact, I think it has too much teeth, that's why so many interested parties are pushing for a repeal.
The problem in enforcement arises when there are millions of violators. But once they decide to concentrate on a particular offender, he wouldn't stand a chance.
Can anyone legally claim ownership to a set of numbers?
Yes, but the numbers must be taken in context. For example, if the number combination represents a trademark or tradename, then it can be subject to ownership.
In this case, however, it's not an issue of ownership, but an issue of whether the number is primarily a tool for circumvention of copy protection.
And which one carries higher primacy: constitutional guarantees of free speech or copyright laws? I know that freedom of expression ends where libel begins, but can we say the same for copyright laws?
Freedom of speech has primacy, but it is subject to exceptions. Libel is an exception to freedom of speech, in the same manner that copyright infringement is likewise an exception thereto.
BBC had already broadcast the key.
http://www.dslinux.org/blogs/pepsiman/?p=81
Are they also liable?
No, not yet.
BBC may avail of the DMCA's "safe harbor" provisions by complying with takedown notices. All BBC has to do is wait for AACS to issue a takedown notice, then comply by removing or editing the post.
It seems that BBC made an error in good faith. That's what the safe harbor provisions are for. An honest mistake is initially presumed. After receiving a takedown notice, the BBC can no longer say that it was a mistake in good faith.
Another question: If I were to post a link to a site containing the decryption key, will I and/or the owners of PinoyDVD be liable?
Now, this is more specific to Philippine jurisdiction.
If it happened in the U.S., the answer would definitely fall under DMCA provisions.
The U.S. Court of Appeals ruled in Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Reimerdes that the act of posting and/or linking DeCSS (for DVDs) is a violation of the DMCA. The only difference is that in the Reimerdes case, what was posted was DeCSS, an executable program; whereas in the Digg situation, what was posted was merely an encryption key, not a complete program.
In my opinion, the encryption key can be considered a "component" that is "primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing" copy protection; hence, posting it or posting a link thereto is a violation of the DMCA.
How about in this jurisdiction?
The DMCA does not apply in the Philippines. Therefore, the answer must be based on Philippine law.
In the Philippines, "copyright" under R.A. 8293, otherwise known as the Intellectual Property Code ("IPC") covers literary, scholarly, scientific and artistic works, which includes computer programs.
However, an encryption code is not a "computer program," which is defined under sec. 171.4 of the IPC as "a set of instructions expressed in words, codes, schemes or in any other form, which is capable when incorporated in a medium that the computer can read, of causing the computer to perform or achieve a particular task or result". In view thereof, I don't think the IPC can apply.
Another Philippine law is R.A. 8792, otherwise known as the E-Commerce Act. Sec. 33 thereof states:
"(a) Hacking or cracking which refers to unauthorized access into or interference in a computer system/server or information and communication system; or any access in order to corrupt, alter, steal, or destroy using a computer or other similar information and communication devices, without the knowledge and consent of the owner of the computer or information and communications system, including the introduction of computer viruses and the like, resulting in the corruption, destruction, alteration, theft or loss of electronic data messages or electronic documents shall be punished by a minimum fine of One Hundred Thousand pesos (P 100,000.00) and a maximum commensurate to the damage incurred and a mandatory imprisonment of six (6) months to three (3) years"
I don't think this can apply either because you were not the hacker or cracker --- you merely posted the encryption key.
However, you can be held liable for damages under the Civil Code of the Philippines. Based on the Civil Code's Human Relations and Damages provisions, you can be held liable for your participation in the damage caused to the owners of the copyrighted content if your acts facilitated the distribution of a tool for circumvention of copy protection.
My advice: Just don't post it. Even if you disagree with my opinion, it's always better to be safe.